MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2336542037 · doi:10.36834/cmej.36646

Bedside ultrasound education in Canadian medical schools: A national survey

2016· article· en· W2336542037 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Peter Steinmetz, Octavian Dobrescu, Sharon Oleskevich, John Lewis

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Education Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical educationMedicineFamily medicineData scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This study was carried out to determine the extent and characteristics of bedside ultrasound teaching in medical schools across Canada. METHODS: A cross-sectional, survey-based study was used to assess undergraduate bedside ultrasound education in the 17 accredited medical schools in Canada. The survey, consisting of 19 questions was pilot-tested, web-based, and completed over a period of seven months in 2014. RESULTS: Approximately half of the 13 responding medical schools had integrated bedside ultrasound teaching into their undergraduate curriculum. The most common trends in undergraduate ultrasound teaching related to duration (1-5 hours/year in 50% of schools), format (practical and theoretical in 67% of schools), and logistics (1:4 instructor to student ratio in 67% of schools). The majority of responding vice-deans indicated that bedside ultrasound education should be integrated into the medical school curriculum (77%), and cited a lack of ultrasound machines and infrastructure as barriers to integration. CONCLUSIONS: This study documents the current characteristics of undergraduate ultrasound education in Canada.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.349 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations76
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Education JournalSame topicUltrasound in Clinical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207